or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| E-Mail Indicates Rove Role in Firings |
Itsdb |
03/16/07 |
E-mails released this week, including a set issued Thursday night by the Justice Department, appear to contradict the administration's assertion that Bush's staff had only limited involvement in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, which Democrats have suggested were a politically motivated purge.
Each new piece in the rapidly unfolding saga of how the prosecutors came to be dismissed has made it more difficult for the White House to insulate itself from the controversy.
The latest e-mails between White House and Justice Department officials show that Rove inquired in early January 2005 about firing U.S. attorneys.
The one-page document, which incorporates an e-mail exchange in January 2005, also indicates Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.
In the e-mails, Gonzales' top aide, Kyle Sampson, says that an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only." But it concludes that "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I." ...
he e-mails "show conclusively that Karl Rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "Every time new information comes out, it proves that the White House was not telling the truth."
Earlier Thursday, Rove said the controversy was being fueled by "superheated political rhetoric," adding that there was no similar uproar when President Clinton dismissed all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of his first term.
"We're at a point where people want to play politics with it. That's fine," Rove told students at Troy University in Alabama.
Here's my take on this 'outrage,' so what! Tim Russert comes out a hero in the Plame Affair for his impressive gaps in recall, yet the Bush administration is conspiring and get this - playing politics - over something he has complete legal authority over.
As I pointed out to Tom, US Code states simply Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. I've spent over a dozen years trying to understand government codes at work and I have yet to find anything as simple and straightforward as this one.
The president is to appoint US attorneys "with the advice and consent of the Senate" but is under no obligation to consult them on removal. If anyone is playing politics it is the Democrats. They have no basis to question Bush on this, and if it upsets them that a Senator might interefere with the president's appointments they need a Cheney to Leahy moment.
Democrats have had a long list of demands on this president to oust a member of his team, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Rove, Rove, Rove (who wasn't the leaker), Gonzales, Ashcroft, Condi - who else? Who the hell are they to whine about his administration firing some on his own? And when will the rest of the GOP get a spine?
|
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/17/07 11:38 am:
The ones from Washington(the guv. was probably stolen ) and N. Mexico were about lack of vigorous persuit of charges of voter fraud. I think Carol Lam from San Diego needs to be looked at closer as she was the one who had prosecuted Duke Cunningham and ,from what I hear,was poised to go after California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis. In fact ,for a while there was a cloud over alot of Republicans because of the case including the resignation of the CIA director ,and hooker involvement .The case was getting juicy for a while That makes the claim that she wasn't vigorous in prosecuting illegal immigration cases questionable.
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
